7465.?Adulteration and misbranding" of apple jelly, grape and apple jelly,
elderberry and apple jelly, and raspberry and apple jelly, tl. S.?
* * * v. Tart Products Co., a corporation. Plea of guilty. Fine,?
$50.     (F. & D. No. 107G0.    I. S. Nos. 15262-r, 15263-r, 15264-r, 15265-r.)
On September 10, 1919, the United States attorney for the Eastern District?
of Pennsylvania, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in?
the District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
the Tart Products Co., a corporation, doing business at Philadelphia, Pa.,?
alleging shipment by said company, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on?
or about November 9, 1918, from the State of Pennsylvania into the State of?
Maryland, of quantities of articles, labeled in part "Tart Brand Pure Jelly?
Apple," " Tart Brand Pure Jelly Grape and Apple," " Tart Brand Pure Jelly
iN. J. 7451-7500.]     SERVICE  AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	329
Elderberry and Apple," and " Tart Brand Pure Jelly Raspberry and Apple,"?
which were adulterated and misbranded.
Analyses of samples of the articles made by the Bureau of Chemistry of this?
department showed that they consisted essentially of pectin sirup, with little?
or no fruit juice.
Adulteration of the article in each shipment was alleged in the information?
for the reason that certain substances, to wit, pectin sirup and water, had been?
mixed and packed therewith so as to lower, reduce, and injuriously affect its?
quality and strength, and had been substituted in part for pure apple jelly, or?
pure grape and apple jelly, or pure elderberry and apple jelly, or pure rasp??
berry and apple jelly, as the case might be, which the article purported to be.
Misbranding of each article was alleged for the reason that it was an imita??
tion of, and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of, another article,?
to wit, pure apple jelly, or pure grape and apple jelly, or pure elderberry and?
apple jelly, or raspberry and apple jelly, as the case might be. Misbranding?
of the article was alleged for the further reason that the label appearing on?
each article as aforesaid, to wit, " Pure Jelly Apple," or " Pure Jelly Grape?
and Apple," or Pure Jelly Elderberry and Apple," or " Pure Jelly Raspberry?
and Apple," was false and misleading in that it represented to purchasers?
of the article that it was pure apple jelly, or pure grape and apple jelly, or?
pure elderberry and apple jelly, or pure raspberry and apple jelly, as the case?
might be, and for the further reason that it was labeled as aforesaid so as to?
deceive and mislead the purchasers into the belief that it was pure apple jelly,?
or pure grape and apple jelly, or pure elderberry, and apple jelly, or pure rasp??
berry and apple jelly, as the case might be, whereas, in fact and in truth, it?
was not pure apple jelly, or pure grape and apple jelly, or pure elderberry?
and apple jelly, or pure raspberry and apple jelly, but was a compound of?
pectin sirup containing little or no juice of the apple, or of the grape or apple,?
or of the elderberry or apple, or of the raspberry or apple.
On September 15, 1919, the defendant company entered a plea of guilty to the?
information, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
E. D. BALL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.